On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 12:06:49PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > So the only access we really care about is the child tid-pointer > clearing one, and that always happens after PF_EXITING has been set > afaik. > > No other case really matters. If somebody accesses a userfault region > just as another thread is exiting, we don't care. I don't think it > would necessarily be wrong to ignore the fault, but I don't think it's > relevant either, since at that stage the normal "you can signal the > thread" still works. It's only the child tid access that comes *after* > we have stopped acceping signals, and that's marked by that > PF_EXITING. > > Or maybe I misunderstood your worry entirely or missed something, and > my answer above is entirely beside your point. Did you have something > else in mind? No, I've misread de_thread()/zap_other_threads(). No objections to the patch. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
